Page 159 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Free Speech Fatalities 149

authorize or have any prior knowledge of Amett's television interview with
Iraqi Television, and had we been consulted, would not have allowed it." Arnett
himself later apologized to television networks and the American people for his
"misjudgment" of the initial stages of the Iraq war; however, this apology was
likely more the result of intense nationalistic pressures than an acknowledge-
ment on his part that he engaged in unprofessional reporting. In one public
statement released after he was fired, Arnett argued that, "I am still in shock and
awe at being fired. . . . I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad
and will not apologise for it." Amett's firing for expressing "anti-war views" is
all the more ironic considering he was not an opponent of the war. Arnett ex-
plained that "I am not anti-war, I am not anti-military. . . . I said over the week-
end what we all know about the war."79
Dan Rather also became the subject of the Bush administration and media
attacks after 60 Minutes ran a critical story of the President in late 2004 based on
forged documents that alleged the President received special treatment while he
served in the Texas Air National Guard. There was a perception amongst CBS
reporters, editors, and executives that this story hurt the network professionally
and in terms of credibility. A panel appointed by the network to look into the
matter faulted those responsible for the story for their "rigid and blind" defense
of the 60 Minutes story.80 CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves replied that, "We
deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes report did to the American
public, which has the right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy."8'
After two weeks of defending the story, Dan Rather reversed course, personally
apologizing for his "mistake in judgment" in the use of the forged documents.82
In the nationalistic media climate of the 2004 elections, there were serious pen-
alties to be paid for criticisms against the Bush administration-even Rather's
criticisms-that lacked any direct connection to the post-911 1 foreign policy or
Iraq.
As a major news anchor for a major news network, Rather's criticisms of
the Bush administration could not be as easily ignored or brushed off as those of
individual Op-Ed writers or newspaper editors. While the editors and columnists
for papers like the New York Times and Washington Post were able to get away
with supporting U.S. regime change in favor of Presidential hopeful John Kerry,
there was a serious price to be paid for attacks such as Rather's, which was not
merely an opinion, but was subject to empirical falsification. As punishment for
the use of the counterfeit documents in the story, four CBS employees involved
in the production were fired or asked to resign. The story was likely an impor-
tant factor in forcing Dan Rather into retirement. At the heart of the National
Guard "scandal" were two main problems. The first was CBSs use of forged
documents that were said to come from Bush's commander in the Texas Air
National Guard, Lt. Col. Jeny Killian. The documents described Bush's sup-
posed failure to take a physical during his National Guard service,s3 as well as
the alleged efforts of Killian's superiors to get him to "sugarcoat" Bush's service
record.84 A second problem with the story, according to CBS president Andrew
Heyward, was that 60 Minutes rushed the piece onto the air. This meant that
there was less time to expose potential problems with the story. Heyward ex-